turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Atomic bomb
TWTPE I didn't realize it as I was reading, but once I did it really seemed incredible. We're two-thirds of the way through TWTPE, and though Einstein's name has been used once or twice, we have not heard a single peep hinting at plans to build atomic bombs by anyone. Granted an all-grunts cast of POVs poses a problem to getting classified information out, but only a small problem. Some tiny bit of flotsam comes up in someone's gossip; the person hearing it doesn't think twice about it, but it's recognizable to any well-read history buff from our time. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:22, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :I did wonder about the a-bomb during the Japanese bacteria scenes, but like you, it didn't occur to me until after I put it down that there was nothing that could be interrpreted as a reference to the A-bomb. :Funny thing, when you get right down to it, the only thing that will prevent the debut of an atom bomb in this series is that, based on HT's timeline, the war will probably be over before the bomb is ready. Even if we're generous and assume that Szilard makes the same intuitive leap about a possible German bomb a year early it was still over two years before FDR gave the final greenlight for the project (Oct, 1941, OTL), then the better part of 4 years until Trinity (July 1945) and then Hiroshima/Nagasaki. :So here, if we're playing the parallel game: Say the Szilard letter goes to FDR in October-November, 1938. FDR then at the earliest might approve the project in late 1940 (he might even wait until the election is over). Unlike in OTL, he would not be corresponding with Britain (or Canada, either, I guess), so that resource would be lost, and that could add some drag/stumbling blocks not felt in OTL. The project itself didn't occially begin until July, 1942 in OTL--maybe it gets going in 1941 with the Japanese attack, provided they've ironed out all the kinks required. :I guess a bomb could be ready by mid 1944, but, based on the schedule thus far, 2F is most likely going to be set entirely in 1942 (whether or not it will cover the entire year or part of the year, or spill over in 1943, I can't say). That would mean that Book 6 would be comprised of 1943 (in all or in part), and, perhaps some part of 1944. But since it's the last book of the series, based on prior HT patterns, the war will be over by the middle of the book. Probably long before any bomb is ready to be dropped. TR (talk) 18:00, August 6, 2012 (UTC) ::We can use that logic for an American bomb, but they're not the only ones who can be building a bomb. And while a program to build nuclear programs from scratch does require huge amounts of resources, at the end of the day the single most important factor is ingenuity, inspiration--someone coming up with an idea that works. And that can happen at any time. The theoretical physics were already worked out by 1938, more or less; there were enough scientists in the world familiar with them; the technology to experiment existed. These conditions make it possible, if not probable, to have a prototype device built on a time frame very unlike OTL's. ::Given how many decisions made in ignorance turned out to be critical to the success of the Manhattan Project, and/or the delay or derailment of rival Axis projects, there's lots of potential for little side PODs to have dramatic effects in this area, and HT's been playing with little side PODs the whole series. :::I suppose so. But given that many of the factors that helped derail the Axis plans in OTL are still present in TWPE, I will be astonished if they pull it off. Japan in particular, as HT seems to be telling us that their eggs are in the bioweapons basket. ::::They may not be able to do it, but I find it interesting that no one's even trying. You could have some sign that Hitler's authorized the project, even if it's doomed. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :::Chamberlain and Wilson don't seem likely to have gotten excited about this. And it took Flerov to get Stalin excited in 1942 for their project to get going. Not certain that impetus exists in TWPE. ::::Maybe now that the West is all on the same page things will be set in motion. Maybe not, of course; now that the Brits and French have both proven themselves capable of being faithless allies when their self-interest requires it (well every country is capable of that, but Britain and France were a bit more flagrant than most), inviting either of them to take part in a cooperative effort where extremely sensitive info will be exchanges is a rather questionable idea now. ::::It would be interesting if non-occupied France contributes to the Manhattan Project; they had some . . . colorful nuclear physicists. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :::I guess agree that it could be possible. For me, the 2 volume factor seems to be the biggest factor. If we had even a book 7 on the horizon, I'd probably say the A-bomb is a-coming. But on HT's schedule the war will be done by 1943, and I don't think there's enough time to get a plausible prototype on that schedule. TR (talk) 21:14, August 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::The Confederates built their bomb over the course of three volumes, but the total length of time involved only equalled two books' worth. They had some help from the British, and they had a LOT of help from HT, who hand-waved all kinds of obstacles away for the sake of plot convenience. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC) ::Now I'm not really complaining; in fact, I think a WWII that's resolved without the atom bomb could make a very interesting AH project. But given Turtledove's tropes, I find it a bit odd that there's been not a peep in this area. Even if it's only a hint that some scientist somewhere suggested the project to the head of his government and, like FitzBelmont going to Featherston, was given a flat "No." We've had several characters well positioned to make some oblique allusion to that. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:49, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :::And that might be HT's subtle way of saying no A-bomb this war. Or his "follow X POVs to the bitter end" rule at work. I confess, I rather like the idea of no a-bomb myself. TR (talk) 21:14, August 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::Let me say that, even though I'm being a nay-sayer above, I'm rooting for no bomb showing up in this war. HT's got four options: ::::1. Continue to give us no hints that anyone's working on an atom bomb, and then not have anybody employ one. As I said I find it interesting. ::::2. Continue to give us no hits that anyone's working on an atom bomb, and then have one country or another pull one out of nowhere. Very cheap. ::::3. Suddenly give us hints that someone's working on an atom bomb, and deliver one. Implausible for the reasons you've outlined. ::::4. Suddenly give us hints that someone's working on an atom bomb, but never deliver one. It will feel like a red herring, especially if it comes so late in the series. ::::Number One is my favorite possibility. Given HT's track record, I question just how likely it is, though. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC) By the way, another thing that surprises me is that this talk page had been blank for all these years before I brought this up. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:49, August 6, 2012 (UTC) Bump! In light of subsequent books in the tWTCE series, this is an interesting discussion especially TF's comment "there's lots of potential for little side PODs to have dramatic effects in this area"! ML4E (talk) 21:33, October 22, 2013 (UTC) :Indeed. We now know that the US project is on hiatus. We also know that HT moved 2F from December 1941 to about April 1943. So I was wrong on that point. :Whether or not anyone else gets the bomb: Germany still seems to be in that "big tanks and planes work better than big bombs" mode, Japan sure likes its bioweapons, France seems to be barely capable of making the right decision at any given moment, let alone building an a-bomb, and Britain's military government seems too conservative on the issue of warfare to get going on a bomb. We have no idea what the USSR is up to. I suppose Flerov could make the same intuitive leap as in OTL, but if Stalin is able to figure out the US has decided a bomb is unworkable, I'm not sure he'd be interested in pursuing it either. (And Flerov would probably be in Siberia or dead.) TR (talk) 00:12, October 23, 2013 (UTC) ::One thing that hit me as I was reviewing what happened last year is that, as far as I'm aware, no nuclear power has ever developed its bomb in a vacuum. The US and UK cooperated closely, France and Israel cooperated to an unknown degree and drew on a pool of talent from both countries with knowledge of the Manhattan Project, the USSR relied in part on information spies had found in the US, China had help from Soviet technicians in the early stages and is rumored to have had additional help from Americans in the later stages (though the latter is controversial), and everyone who's built the Bomb more recently than that has benefited from the fact that nuclear proliferation makes the recipe easy to find. I even remember seeing a thing years ago about some smart kid who built a papier mache nuke for a science fair so his father could prove a political point about the need for tighter control of sensitive information. The only country that made a serious attempt to build a Bomb all on its own (not counting some Austrians) before the designs became something of an open secret was Germany, and of course, they failed. ::Anyway, I don't think it's unfair to say that the development of a nuclear weapon from scratch requires a collaborative effort of some sort involving at least two great powers. And that means reasonably close alliances, or the expectation that alliances are closer than in fact they are, or at the very minimum the need to keep up appearances for short-term mutual benefit. And that just doesn't happen in TWTPE. Countries are willing to ally for short-term mutual benefit, but they don't feel any need to keep up appearances. Of all the combatants I don't think any two of them are proper bosom buddies. The closest would be the UK and France, and the political atmosphere necessary for the sort of long-run innovation needed to pioneer something like this is not present in either country. Italy's a pretty firm German ally, I suppose (well, at least in the sense that the spirit is willing, though the flesh is weak) but it's only a great power in a peripheral, vestigial way, and anyway, assuming Fermi didn't decide to hang around after all, they'd have nothing to contribute. ::So now that I think of it, the conditions for a nuke-free WWII have been in the series more or less since the beginning. We didn't really realize because it's such a departure for Turtledove, but he's set up a world where mushroom clouds are so much pie in the sky. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:49, October 25, 2013 (UTC) In Curious Notions Jonathan changed the CN entry to read "Germany used the bomb 12 times during its war with the United States in 1956." That 12 is awfully specific. Is it given in the book? I suspect that if any number is given, then the story actually said Germany used the Bomb a dozen times during its war with the US and Jonathan translated that to "12". ML4E (talk) 17:59, October 9, 2015 (UTC) The text says "a dozen American cities went up the first day the war". It also says that San Francisco wasn't one of them because the bombers meant for SF were shot down. The war was mostly mop up from then on. It would probably be accurate to the text to say "a dozen cities were destroyed". TR (talk) 18:18, October 9, 2015 (UTC) Atom bombs in The Hot War I have four questions to ask the community. First, since Bombs away is likely going to involve the largest number of nuclear weapons yet in a Turtledove book, would it be better to seperate them out into their own article? Second, since Elmendorf AFB was the official target of bombings, should we include that instead of saying that Anchorage Alaska was bombed? Third, I don't have the book avalible to me at this moment, but weren't there bombs detonated in Moscow, San Fransisco, and Rural Maine? And lastly, should we also reference bombing missions that were unsuccessful, Such as the attempt to bomb either Las Vegas Nevada or the Hoover Dam? 13:29, October 21, 2015 (UTC) :Separating out THW section into its own article is premature at this stage. In reality, the USSR only had about 25 bombs when the novel began, and doesn't appear to have had the capacity to create more bombs at the same speed as the US did (the USSR had 50 in 1952). If HT is paying attention (and I think given how the USSR attacks seem to peter out a bit after the canal attacks, he is) we may not see that many more bombs throughout the remainder of the series. :Elmendorf is already listed. :The article is under construction at this point, so yes, we will get to all the cities attacked in the US, the USSR, and Europe in the near future. We don't typically list bombs that aren't detonated, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. TR (talk) 15:31, October 21, 2015 (UTC) ::The unsuccessful attacks would more logically fit in World War III (The Hot War) when we start writing that. Nuclear attacks and counter-attacks probably should be their own sub-section. Although, if they are used tactically to say destroy a massed Soviet armor offensive, then that particular bombing might fit better in the particular Theater of War sub-section. ::With respect to this article, wasn't there a successful bombing in Newfoundland as well? :::Indeed. It's a-comin'. TR (talk) 19:28, October 21, 2015 (UTC) :: I had to return my copy of THW to the public library and don't have one handy at the moment to verify. Its a good thing you named the category "Places" rather than "Cities" as before. You probably had that and the spot in Belgium from TL-191 in mind when you did that. ML4E (talk) 19:00, October 21, 2015 (UTC) :::Among other things. As TF pointed out in the category talk page for "Cities Destroyed by Atomic Bombs" some years ago, many cities got to rebuilding quickly, and weren't "destroyed" as such. We saw more of that in BA, where the Kremlin was leveled, but Moscow as still passable. Same with Harbin. So "cities destroyed" didn't make sense anymore. TR (talk) 19:28, October 21, 2015 (UTC) ::::Ah, right. These would be uranium and/or plutonium bombs rather than hydrogen and so, while very destructive, they don't make a crater ten miles wide. ML4E (talk) 17:59, October 22, 2015 (UTC) Hydrogen Bombs On page 196 HC, while Truman is gloomily thinking about Lovecraft, he is also thinking about the next generation of bombs that physicists were working on. These could blow up a "medium-sized state" not just a city. Clearly he is think of hydrogen bombs. I think this should be mentioned but I am unsure if it should be here or in a new "Hydrogen Bomb" article. If here, I am also trying to figure out where and how. Another paragraph before the list of cities? Suggestions? ML4E (talk) 00:21, January 6, 2016 (UTC) :I think a quick line here for now, something like "Truman was aware that new bombs were coming, etc.", and then if hydrogen bombs make their appearance, edit accordingly. TR (talk) 00:41, January 6, 2016 (UTC) :A hydrogen bomb article is premature at this stage. If that changes after FO, and I fully expect it to, that article would be the proper home for that comment. In the meantime I guess we should leave it here as a placeholder. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:08, January 6, 2016 (UTC) :Out of curiosity, I checked and the first test explosion (yielding 400 kilotons since the design was a hybrid design, not a complete hydrogen bomb) was in August, 1954. I can't see the USSR pushing that forward given the war damage so that wouldn't be the surprise the teaser for the second book promised. ML4E (talk) 21:56, January 7, 2016 (UTC) sigh Apparently we've jinxed it. Mention the hydrogen bomb by name and the world's worst government goes and detonates one a few hours later. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:38, January 6, 2016 (UTC) :I'm in at bit of "wait and see" mode. They might be exaggerating. TR (talk) 16:18, January 6, 2016 (UTC) ::I don't know, exaggeration really isn't like them. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:04, January 7, 2016 (UTC) :::As I recall, their first test was a partial failure leading to only a partial explosion. However, they claimed it was a complete success. ML4E (talk) 21:56, January 7, 2016 (UTC) ::::I was trying to take advantage of how easy it is to dead-pan in writing, and apparently went too far. In every facet of public life, the DPRK government's capacity for exaggeration is just staggering. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:30, January 7, 2016 (UTC) :::: A bit of good news though, is that while experts have detected a sizable explosion it's nowhere near the size needed to be a proper hydrogen bomb. I'm more interested in how China's going to handle this. There's no way they'll let NK go nuclear, because that might start a nuclear arms race within Asia.Mr Nelg (talk) 11:58, January 8, 2016 (UTC) :It was a little freaky when I heard the news last night. ML4E (talk) 23:22, January 6, 2016 (UTC) Changing Topics Slightly The UK completed its first nuclear warhead in 1952. Think that will happen this time? I doubt it. Their transportation and manufacturing sectors have taken a licking, and the loss of the Suez Canal means you can't rely on raw materials coming in from the colonies. Their industrial capacity is thus diminished, and they may have all they can do to keep their armies in the field. Even if they do build one bomb, it would take them forever to build a proper stockpile. Meanwhile, by our math the USSR went into the war having, at best, one bomb for every six the US possessed. The US has used more, I believe, but nowhere close to six times as many. So things are looking bad enough as is for the Soviets; a second nuclear enemy would be intolerable. If they learned the Brits had a bomb, they might hit London and every other major population center on the island and be done with the kingdom altogether. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:04, October 22, 2015 (UTC) :While I can see the British testing their bomb in the post-war period, no I don't see them pulling it off earlier than OTL, for the reasons you listed: resources, threat of destruction (although London's fair game right now if Paris is), etc. I actually learned something new while contemplating a response: despite the close cooperation between the US and the UK on the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 prohibited the US from any further sharing research with the UK. So, even if Truman were decide to share with Attlee/Churchill/whoever, he couldn't do it without a Congressional ok. Although, that could be an interesting plot point if HT wanted to play with it. TR (talk) 20:40, October 22, 2015 (UTC) ::Ooh, that would be interesting. I wonder if Truman would say "To hell with your congressional act, this is an emergency!" Or if maybe he'd have some shadowy figure in the CIA pass the info along. Plausible deniability doesn't really go with "The Buck Stops Here," but you never know. :::It would be a good "gray" area for HT to play around in, especially as Truman is a POV. And it's certainly within Truman's character in real life and as HT has written him to go with the emergency shadow option to get the Brits the bomb, and sort things out when the war is won. TR (talk) 16:43, October 23, 2015 (UTC) ::One low-probability scenario I was contemplating was the UK using its bomb as a deterrent/bargaining chip to give it enough leverage to negotiate a separate peace with the USSR. We know that the governments of France and Italy are either 1) wavering or 2) staying strong in NATO, but at risk of being brought down by other factions in the country that want to bail. We know Panama resents the hell out of the US for allowing the Canal to be destroyed. We don't know that Canada is wavering in its loyalty, but we do know that alliance with the US got it hit with an atomic bomb as retaliation for a policy that it had nothing to do with, and we know that Vancouver isn't picking up the slack of the US's wrecked Pacific ports for funding US troops in Korea. :::With respect to France and Italy, my impression was that the governments were under threat from Communist or at least Socialist fellow travelers who wanted to align with the USSR rather than just wanting to exit the war through a separate peace. As far as Canada is concerned, I don't think the lack of shipping through Vancouver represents anything more than the OTL transportation limitations. Although I believe the port itself could pick up a fair bit of the slack, the main bottleneck would be railroad lines and roadways to transship from the US through the rest of Canada and to the port. The bomb going off in Newfoundland might add some internal conflict within Canada since they voted to join Canada only a few years earlier and the referendum to do so carried by just over 50% ML4E (talk) 22:07, October 23, 2015 (UTC) ::::Very interesting point about Newfoundland, I had not picked up on that. As for Vancouver being behind a bottleneck, yeah, you're likely right. I just always like to come up with the most dramatic explanation for things like that. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:28, October 24, 2015 (UTC) ::As I think of it, turning US allies is really the only endgame that Stalin can realistically pursue. He can't go tit-for-tat in the nuclear war, because his stockpile is running low and Truman's isn't. And he can't win on the battlefield conventionally, because if the Red Army is on the verge of destroying its US counterpart, the US will nuke it. So going after allies and flipping them until the US is diplomatically isolated is really his best option, if he's not too deluded to see it. ::If that is his strategy, the UK is the ultimate prize. So maybe Truman learns that the Brits are considering a separate peace, and opens back-channel negotiations to get them to reconsider, and illegally provides state of the art nuclear help as part of the price of continued British participation in NATO. ::I think this is a very low-probability development, but I figured I might as well throw it out there. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:09, October 23, 2015 (UTC) :::While I agree some of the atomic aspects of your UK idea are low probability, it does strike me that, at a bare minimum and purely subjectively speaking, the USSR trying to negotiate a separate peace with various NATO members, UK included, could qualify as the "daring gambit" the Fallout cover copy references. From the dispassionate perspective of the historian, it's not all that daring, and would perfect sense under the circumstances. From the perspective of the American reader, it would seem rather "daring" and horrifying, actually, especially if the Brits actually seem like they are listening. TR (talk) 16:43, October 23, 2015 (UTC) ::::There would be a certain timeliness to it: Just last month, the largest party in Britain overwhelmingly voted in a leader who's on record saying he wants the UK out of NATO and who refused to condemn Putin's actions in Ukraine. American observers looked on with concern. This daring gambit could play on those fears. (Though of course we generally know better than to look for much overt political commentary in HT's work.) Turtle Fan (talk) 20:13, October 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::I don't know about HT not being overtly political. I would think MWtIH was a trip-hammer of overtness. ML4E (talk) 22:07, October 23, 2015 (UTC) ::::::It seemed to be at the time, but since then we've found any number of hints that suggest it was less so than it appeared. Many are scattered around on various fora and talk pages here. If you give me a day or two I might be able to think of a few examples and provide links. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:28, October 24, 2015 (UTC) Lists Do we really need a list of two bombs going off in "Ready for the Fatherland"? The info is in the article proper and not so voluminous that a list is necessary. Likewise, the list of three in Supervolcano. ML4E (talk) 21:21, June 9, 2016 (UTC) :I suspect our motivation was parallelism. It is easy for readers to just click on those things rather than read subsection, but I don't have a problem with removing them. TR (talk) 21:52, June 9, 2016 (UTC) ::Our motivation didn't exist. Jonathan added the lists yesterday. ML4E (talk) 18:27, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :::Well, shit. I guess I should have looked at the history. TR (talk) 02:59, June 11, 2016 (UTC) :I think a reader who's conditioned to look for longer lists here might want to look here for every story. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:30, June 9, 2016 (UTC) ::It seems pretty clear in the one paragraph article, but if you don't find them redundant then I won't insist. ML4E (talk) 18:27, June 10, 2016 (UTC)